New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[David T]

I suppose that they were also aware of these verses too.

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Are you saying that you think the creedal doctrine of the trinity was Biblically derived and not the Hellenized philosophies of men mingled with a few verses?

I'm saying I'm pretty sure many of those who believe in the doctrine are well versed, and that this has a solid place in their theology, in which while the Trinity is of one substance (a technical term), they are distinct persons (also a technical term).

One doesn't have to agree with their conclusions to recognize that people who don't agree with you aren't necessarily biblically illiterate people who willfully ignore scriptures. That's a highly arrogant (and very incorrect) position.

[Vance]

I'm saying I'm pretty sure many of those who believe in the doctrine are well versed, and that this has a solid place in their theology, in which while the Trinity is of one substance (a technical non-biblical term), they are distinct persons (also a technical non-biblical term).

I assume you are aware of the non-LDS Christian Scholarly position that the doctrine of the trinity is NOT biblically based.

This, of course, is not a problem for non-"sola sciptural" "Traditional" Christians, like Catholics, but for the "sola-scriptura" inclined it is bad news.

One doesn't have to agree with their conclusions to recognize that people who don't agree with you aren't necessarily biblically illiterate people who willfully ignore scriptures. That's a highly arrogant (and very incorrect) position.

Wow!!!!

Are you talking to me or Rob?

[Mark Beesley]

. . . the line of argument I have been making (across at least three threads now) has to do with supposed apostles and prophets since Joseph's death.

Three threads??? Holy Cow, you must really be on to something. Got any converts yet? So, how long before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints withers on the vine because her apostles won't say, I have seen Jesus Christ? And, does your foot hurt yet? (See D&C 121:38)

[CV75]

In light of this additional evidence, we should give the rhetorical questions of 1 Corinthians 9:1 their full and natural force in context, that Paul (and his readers) understood his having seen the risen Lord Jesus as having qualified him to be an apostle. Such a conclusion coheres with the teaching of Luke in his Gospel and Acts that Christ commissioned the apostles to be authoritative witnesses to the fact of his resurrection.

Makes sense in light of the doctrine that the Lord would manifest Himself in person to the Jews but not the Gentiles; that the Gentiles (including the apostles that arise from among them) would receive their witness by the power of the Holy Ghost rfom the ministry of the Jews. In this transition phase from the ministry unto the Jews first and then the Gentiles, the apostles would, either for symbolic or programmatic purposes, would see Him. Note that, during this phase, the Lord was ministering personally to the inhabitants of the isles of the sea, remnants of Israel. As of the restoration, the times of the Gentiles involves (again, symbolically or pro grammatically) being ministered unto by the apostolic witness and the power of the Holy Ghost. Once again, Jesus will minister to the Jews personally on the Mount of Olives and we may see more emphasis on His apostles seeing the rsen Christ.

[cdowis]

First, for 1700 years there were no apostles, even by LDS reckoning. Then, in the 1830s, Joseph Smith claimed that he had been appointed as an apostle, and a new order of apostles was introduced. The burden of proof is on Mormons to show that these latter-day apostles are what they claim to be.

You are absolutely correct, just as the burden was on the Christians to prove that Jesus was the Messiah after centuries of waiting.

The answer is found in the Book of Mormon. If it is scripture, the word of God, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and received the priesthood. The burden now shifts to you in determining whether it is scripture. Read, study, meditate and pray about it, and find out from the Lord whether it is His word. That is something that I cannot do for you -- that is your personal burden.

[mrmendoza]

You are absolutely correct, just as the burden was on the Christians to prove that Jesus was the Messiah after centuries of waiting.

The answer is found in the Book of Mormon. If it is scripture, the word of God, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and received the priesthood. The burden now shifts to you in determining whether it is scripture. Read, study, mediatate and pray about it, and find out from the Lord whether it is His word. That is something that I cannot do for you -- that is your personal burden.

Well said! Something I have realized for a while now is, that The Book of Mormon, also offers a better proof of the resurection of the Lord, by it's very exsistence! After all, in that so many Christians claim the Bible to be the only real authority, the only authorive record they have is the Bible itself. So, when you have Luke, a friend of Paul, writing the book of The Acts of the Apostles, making all those statements about who has seen the risen Lord, then you hear from Paul , and then Peter, and John, you still only have the Bible, testifying of itself! Modern "scholars" have made a big deal out of what they consider to be additions by the followers of Jesus, which seems to cast doubt, on all the miricles, including the resurection, and even as much as 80% of the words of Jesus!

The Book of Mormon (If you can accept it.) by being another witness from clear on the other side of the world, testifies that Christ was indeed resurected, and that he actualy said the thing that the Bible said he did!

Not only does the Book of Mormon establish the onset of the "restoration of all things", it verifies the truths of the Bible! The wisdom of the wise is confounded, and truth raises up from the ground!

Mike

[Palerider]

jadams,

You wrote:

Your question shifts the burden of proof to those who don't accept your latter-day apostles, instead of putting the burden of proof where it belongs. It does so in two ways.

First, for 1700 years there were no apostles, even by LDS reckoning. Then, in the 1830s, Joseph Smith claimed that he had been appointed as an apostle, and a new order of apostles was introduced. The burden of proof is on Mormons to show that these latter-day apostles are what they claim to be.

Second, my reading of the evidence is that very few of the LDS apostles since the days of Joseph Smith have even claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. I have cited several sources in which LDS apostles have denied the necessity of such encounters. It is common to read the theological rationale that the witness of the Spirit is superior to the witness of seeing Jesus with one's physical eyes. That theological rationale would be unnecessary and irrelevant if many or most, let alone all, of the LDS apostles had seen Jesus with their eyes. Some LDS leaders have also explained that even if they had seen Jesus it would not be something normally appropriate to tell to others, either because it's too sacred (odd, since the NT apostles boldly told everyone who would listen) or because "unbelievers" would ridicule them (ditto; as if true apostles should be at all concerned about the criticism or ridicule of unbelievers!). All of this leads me to conclude that the truth is that few if any of the LDS apostles of the past 160 years or so have claimed or even believed that they had seen the risen Christ. I have solid, factual evidence from the testimonies of LDS apostles as again summarized here to support my conclusion. My evidence is not "anti-Mormon" propaganda; it comes directly from your own apostles. So I put the burden of proof on you to show that contrary to the evidence I have presented the LDS apostles have seen the risen Jesus, or at least claim to have seen him.

Arguing "maybe they saw him but they are not telling and you can't prove they didn't" is really a form of the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance. From the fact that I cannot absolutely prove that most LDS apostles never saw the risen Jesus, it does not follow that it is reasonable to think that they did. Such an argument is logically equivalent to arguing that because it's impossible to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist that it is reasonable to conclude that it does; or because I can't prove that there are no alien bodies in Area 51 that we should accept or even take seriously the claim that there are; or because it's difficult to disprove that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and ran off with her to France and started a royal bloodline that this makes for good history.

I'm coming back late to this discussion and wish I'd had time to express this exact sentiment regarding how the early church Apostles declared ( without equivocation) that they had seen and were witnesses for the Savior. I see NO ONE doing that today. Only that tacit approval is given to people further down line to declare that people farther up the line are having "direct communication" with God or the Savior. If a person is in "direct", personal, communication with God stop tip-toeing around and say it. Anything else is cowardly.

[cdowis]

Palerider, your wait is over:

D&C 110

[Skywalker]

Did Paul see the risen Christ?

[LeSellers]

Did Paul see the risen Christ?

While this answer is, "Yes," that's not the right question. The right question is "When did Paul see the Risen Christ?"

Lehi

[zerinus]

In the New Testament, anyone who claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ is presumed to have been an eyewitness to the risen Jesus. That is, only men who had seen Jesus alive after his resurrection were qualified to be apostles. Some of the evidence for this conclusion is in certain respects indirect, but the evidence in its totality is reasonably conclusive.

Luke uses the term

[Palerider]

Palerider, your wait is over:

D&C 110

What aspect of the word "today" is escaping you?

[cdowis]

What aspect of the word "today" is escaping you?

Well, today is Nov 6, 2010. You are demanding a vision every single day?

So........I think I have a good grasp of what today means. I looked it up in the dictionary. Do you have a problem with using a dictionary? Let's see what it has to say:

TODAY

1. this present day: Today is beautiful.

2. this present time or age: the world of today.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So his "testimony" isn't a "witness"? What is it that a "witness" actually gives?

Sometimes, I just don't seem to be able to follow your reasoning. This is one of those times. I have no idea what the basis of your first question is.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Rob,

You still have this insurmountable problem that the original twelve were chosen and ordained apostles long before they witnessed the risen Lord.

You have tried to explain this away, but it is impossible to do so.

Okay, smart-aleck, you tell me what the job of the original twelve apostles was.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So Rob has come and gone again and is still ignoring these verses

Vance, I have not "come and gone." I've been participating in the discussion quite steadily.

As for the verses you claim I am ignoring (John 5:32-37), I have already addressed the point of your citation of these verses. I agree that not every use of the word "witness" is referring to seeing something. I have already explained why this is not a cogent rebuttal to my argument. You are continuing to ignore that explanation.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Well stated, and quite fair-minded.

I'm saying I'm pretty sure many of those who believe in the doctrine are well versed, and that this has a solid place in their theology, in which while the Trinity is of one substance (a technical term), they are distinct persons (also a technical term).

One doesn't have to agree with their conclusions to recognize that people who don't agree with you aren't necessarily biblically illiterate people who willfully ignore scriptures. That's a highly arrogant (and very incorrect) position.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

Sarcasm is fun and all, but it's no substitute for reasoned argument.

Three threads??? Holy Cow, you must really be on to something. Got any converts yet? So, how long before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints withers on the vine because her apostles won't say, I have seen Jesus Christ? And, does your foot hurt yet? (See D&C 121:38)

[cdowis]

Vance,

You wrote:

Okay, smart-aleck, you tell me what the job of the original twelve apostles was.

Sigh. Let the apostle Paul be the smart-aleck.

Apparently you have ripped the book of Ephesians out of your Bible. Paul tells us that they were the foundation of the church, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. He later told us how important they were in the continuation of the church.

Now, when are you going to respond to my posts -- the Eph 4 and the "burden" posts?

I had a friend who once asked in his philosophy class, "Which is the greater miracle -- a stone which can speak, or a philosopher who can stop talking." Perhaps we have a miracle in the making here.

[Rob Bowman]

cdowis,

You wrote:

You are absolutely correct, just as the burden was on the Christians to prove that Jesus was the Messiah after centuries of waiting.

And they responded to that challenge with reasoned argument from the Scriptures that the Jews accepted as God's word (e.g., Acts 17:2-3). The original Christians were quite up to the challenge of meeting a reasonable burden of proof. Mormons, generally, not so much.

You wrote:

The answer is found in the Book of Mormon.

Actually, no, it is not. Even if the Book of Mormon were scripture, Joseph Smith might have apostatized, as some people in the Mormon restorationist movement actually believe.

You wrote:

If it is scripture, the word of God, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and received the priesthood.

Sorry, this doesn't follow. According to LDS sources, Joseph translated much of the Book of Mormon in 1828, and even some in April and May 1829, before he supposedly received the Aaronic priesthood in June 1829.

You wrote:

The burden now shifts to you in determining whether it is scripture.

No, the burden of proof is on Mormons to show why we should accept it as scripture.

You wrote:

Read, study, meditate and pray about it, and find out from the Lord whether it is His word.

Did so -- and the answer was in the negative.

[Palerider]

Well, today is Nov 6, 2010. You are demanding a vision every single day?

So........I think I have a good grasp of what today means. I looked it up in the dictionary. Do you have a problem with using a dictionary? Let's see what it has to say:

TODAY

1. this present day: Today is beautiful.

2. this present time or age: the world of today.

[Vance]

I agree that not every use of the word "witness" is referring to seeing something.

This is a good admission on your part. Now, can you tell us just who is the arbiter of when "witness" means "eyewitness" and when it doesn't?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

No "arbiter" is needed. Just look at the texts in context. You are still ignoring the argument I presented in my opening post.

This is a good admission on your part. Now, can you tell us just who is the arbiter of when "witness" means "eyewitness" and when it doesn't?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Repeating arguments that have already been refuted would be a good example of wasting breath.

You are wasting your breath.

[Vance]

Sigh. Let the apostle Paul be the smart-aleck.

Apparently you have ripped the book of Ephesians out of your Bible. Paul tells us that they were the foundation of the church, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. He later told us how important they were in the continuation of the church.

Now, when are you going to respond to my posts -- the Eph 4 and the "burden" posts?

I had a friend who once asked in his philosophy class, "Which is the greater miracle -- a stone which can speak, or a philosopher who can stop talking." Perhaps we have a miracle in the making here.

In addition to being the foundation of the Church, the arbiters of sound doctrine, workers in the ministry, helping bring the saints closer to God (perfection).

They were chosen and ordained and were to bare witness (Not necessarily "eyewitnesses" as with Paul).

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, . . .

. . .

And ye also shall bear witness . . .